Focused fact checking method and system

ABSTRACT

An efficient fact checking system analyzes and determines the factual accuracy of information and/or characterizes the information by comparing the information with source information. The efficient fact checking system automatically monitors information, processes the information, fact checks the information efficiently and/or provides a status of the information.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION(S)

This application is a continuation application of co-pending U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 14/708,450, filed on May 11, 2015, and titled “FACTCHECKING METHOD AND SYSTEM UTILIZING BODY LANGUAGE,” which is acontinuation application of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No.14/291,344, filed on May 30, 2014, and titled “EFFICIENT SOCIALNETWORKING FACT CHECKING METHOD AND SYSTEM,” which is a continuationapplication of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/203,899(now U.S. Pat. No. 8,990,234), filed on Mar. 11, 2014, and titled“EFFICIENT FACT CHECKING METHOD AND SYSTEM,” which claims the benefit ofU.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/946,038, filed Feb. 28,2014, and titled “EFFICIENT FACT CHECKING METHOD AND SYSTEM,” which areall hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties for allpurposes.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the field of information analysis. Morespecifically, the present invention relates to the field ofautomatically verifying the factual accuracy of information.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Information is easily dispersed through the Internet, television, socialmedia and many other outlets. The accuracy of the information is oftenquestionable or even incorrect. Although there are many fact checkers,they typically suffer from efficiency issues.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

An efficient fact checking system analyzes and determines the factualaccuracy of information and/or characterizes the information bycomparing the information with source information. The efficient factchecking system automatically monitors information, processes theinformation, fact checks the information efficiently and/or provides astatus of the information.

The efficient fact checking system provides users with factuallyaccurate information, limits the spread of misleading or incorrectinformation, provides additional revenue streams, and supports manyother advantages.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing efficientfact checking according to some embodiments.

FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of an exemplary computing deviceconfigured to implement the efficient fact checking method according tosome embodiments.

FIG. 3 illustrates a network of devices configured to implement factchecking according to some embodiments.

FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing efficientfact checking using a broadening implementation approach according tosome embodiments.

FIG. 5 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing efficientfact checking using a broadening source approach according to someembodiments.

FIG. 6 illustrates a flowchart of a flowchart of a method ofimplementing efficient fact checking using faster access devicesaccording to some embodiments.

FIG. 7 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing efficientfact checking using a keyword-based source approach according to someembodiments.

FIG. 8 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing reverse factchecking according to some embodiments.

FIG. 9 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementingpriority-based fact checking according to some embodiments.

FIG. 10 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking byseparation according to some embodiments.

FIG. 11 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing a randomfact checking system such that not all content is fact checked accordingto some embodiments.

FIG. 12 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking byelimination according to some embodiments.

FIG. 13 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing a bendablescreen for fact checking according to some embodiments.

FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary bendable device according to someembodiments.

FIG. 15 illustrates a multi-tiered or nested smartphone or smart deviceaccording to some embodiments.

FIG. 16 illustrates a foldable/wallet smartphone which includes two orthree screens according to some embodiments.

FIG. 17 illustrates a diagram of a smart device with multiple projectorsaround the edge of the device according to some embodiments.

FIG. 18 illustrates a side view of a mobile device configured forprojecting fact checking results on the screen according to someembodiments.

FIG. 19 illustrates a front view of a mobile device configured forprojecting fact checking results on the screen according to someembodiments.

FIG. 20 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing multipleaspects for fact checking according to some embodiments.

FIG. 21 illustrates a diagram of displaying fact checking results in acalendar format according to some embodiments.

FIG. 22 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing anticipatoryfact checking according to some embodiments.

FIG. 23 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing questionablefact checking according to some embodiments.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

An efficient fact checking system determines the factual accuracy ofinformation by comparing the information with source information.Additional analysis is able to be implemented as well such ascharacterizing the information.

FIG. 1 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing efficientfact checking according to some embodiments.

In the step 100, information is monitored. In some embodiments, allinformation or only some information (e.g., a subset less than all ofthe information) is monitored. In some embodiments, only explicitlyselected information is monitored. In some embodiments, although allinformation is monitored, only some information (e.g., informationdeemed to be fact-based) is fact checked.

The information includes, but is not limited to, broadcast information(e.g., television broadcast information, radio broadcast information),email, documents, database information, social networking/media content(tweets/Twitter®, Facebook® postings), webpages, message boards, weblogs, any computing device communication, telephonecalls/communications, audio, text, live speeches/audio, radio,television video/text/audio, VoIP calls, video chatting, videoconferencing, images, videos, and/or any other information. Theinformation is able to be in the form of phrases, segments, sentences,numbers, words, comments, values, graphics, and/or any other form.

In some embodiments, monitoring includes recording, scanning, capturing,transmitting, tracking, collecting, surveying, and/or any other type ofmonitoring. In some embodiments, monitoring includes determining if aportion of the information is able to be fact checked. For example, ifinformation has a specified structure, then it is able to be factchecked.

In some embodiments, the efficient fact checking system is implementedwithout monitoring information. This is able to be implemented in anymanner. For example, while information is transmitted from a source, theinformation is also processed and fact checked so that the fact checkresult is able to be presented. In some embodiments, the fact checkresult is embedded in the same stream as the information. In someembodiments, the fact check result is in the header of a packet.

In the step 102, the information is processed. Processing is able toinclude many aspects including, but not limited to, converting (e.g.,audio into text), formatting, parsing, determining context,transmitting, converting an image into text, analyzing andreconfiguring, and/or any other aspect that enables the information tobe fact checked efficiently. Parsing, for example, includes separating along speech into separate phrases that are each separately fact checked.For example, a speech may include 100 different facts that should beseparately fact checked. In some embodiments, the step 102 is able to beskipped if processing is not necessary (e.g., text may not need to beprocessed). In some embodiments, processing includes converting theinformation into a searchable format. In some embodiments, processingoccurs concurrently with monitoring. In some embodiments, processingincludes capturing/receiving and/or transmitting the information (e.g.,to/from the cloud).

In a specific example of processing, information is converted intosearchable information (e.g., audio is converted into searchable text),and then the searchable information is parsed into fact checkableportions (e.g., segments of the searchable text; several word phrases).

Parsing is able to be implemented in any manner including, but notlimited to, based on sentence structure (e.g., subject/verbdetermination), based on punctuation including, but not limited to, endpunctuation of each sentence (e.g., period, question mark, exclamationpoint), intermediate punctuation such as commas and semi-colons, basedon other grammatical features such as conjunctions, based on capitalletters, based on a duration of a pause between words (e.g., 2 seconds),based on duration of a pause between words by comparison (e.g., typicalpauses between words for user are 0.25 seconds and pauses betweenthoughts are 1 second)—the user's speech is able to be analyzed todetermine speech patterns such as length of pauses between words lastinga fourth of the length for pauses between thoughts or sentences, basedon a change of a speaker (e.g., speaker A is talking, then speaker Bstarts talking), based on a word count (e.g., 10 word segments), basedon speech analysis, based on a slowed down version (recording thecontent, slowing down the recorded content to determine timing breaks),based on keywords/key phrases, based on search results, and/or any othermanner. In some embodiments, processing includes, but is not limited to,calculating, computing, storing, recognition, speaker recognition,language (word, phrase, sentence, other) recognition, labeling, and/orcharacterizing.

In the step 104, the information is fact checked efficiently. Factchecking includes comparing the information to source information todetermine the factual validity, accuracy, quality, character and/or typeof the information. In some embodiments, the source information includesweb pages on the Internet, one or more databases, dictionaries,encyclopedias, social network information, video, audio, any othercommunication, any other data, one or more data stores and/or any othersource.

In some embodiments, the comparison is a text comparison such as astraight word for word text comparison. In some embodiments, thecomparison is a context/contextual comparison. In some embodiments, anatural language comparison is used. In some embodiments, patternmatching is utilized. In some embodiments, an intelligent comparison isimplemented to perform the fact check. In some embodiments, exact match,pattern matching, natural language, intelligence, context, and/or anycombination thereof is used for the comparison. Any method of analyzingthe source information and/or comparing the information to the sourceinformation to analyze and/or characterizing the information is able tobe implemented. An exemplary implementation of fact checking includessearching (e.g., a search engine's search), parsing the results orsearching through the results of the search, comparing the results withthe information to be checked using one or more of the comparisons(e.g., straight text, context or intelligent) and retrieving resultsbased on the comparison (e.g., if a match is found return “True”). Theresults are able to be any type including, but not limited to, binary,Boolean (True/False), text, numerical, and/or any other format. In someembodiments, determining context and/or other aspects of convertingcould be implemented in the step 104. In some embodiments, the sourcesare rated and/or weighted. For example, sources are able to be givenmore weight based on accuracy of the source, type of the source, userpreference, user selections, classification of the source, and/or anyother weighting factor. The weighting is then able to be used indetermining the fact check result. For example, if a highly weighted orrated source agrees with a comment, and a low weighted source disagreeswith the comment, the higher weighted source is used, and “valid” or asimilar result is returned.

In the step 106, a status of the information is provided based on thefact check result. The status is provided in any manner including, butnot limited to, transmitting and/or displaying text, highlighting,underlining, color effects, a visual or audible alert or alarm, agraphical representation, and/or any other indication. The meaning ofthe status is able to be any meaning including, but not limited to,correct, incorrect, valid, true, false, invalid, opinion, hyperbole,sarcasm, hypocritical, comedy, unknown, questionable, suspicious, needmore information, questionable, misleading, deceptive, possibly, closeto the truth, and/or any other status.

The status is able to be presented in any manner, including, but notlimited to, lights, audio/sounds, highlighting, text, a text bubble, ascrolling text, color gradient, headnotes/footnotes, an iconic orgraphical representation, a video or video clip, music, other visual oraudio indicators, a projection, a hologram, a tactile indicatorincluding, but not limited to, vibrations, an olfactory indicator, aTweet, a text message (SMS, MMS), an email, a page, a phone call, asocial networking page/transmission/post/content, or any combinationthereof. For example, text is able to be highlighted or the text coloris able to change based on the validity of the text. For example, as auser types a social network message, the true statements are displayedin green, the questionable statements are displayed in yellow, and thefalse statements are displayed in red. In some embodiments, providingthe status includes transmitting and/or broadcasting the status to oneor more devices (e.g., televisions).

The status is also able to include other information including, but notlimited to, statistics, citations and/or quotes. Providing the status ofthe information is also able to include providing additional informationrelated to the fact checked information, such as an advertisement. Insome embodiments, providing includes pointing out, showing, displaying,recommending, playing, presenting, announcing, arguing, convincing,signaling, asserting, persuading, demonstrating, denoting, expressing,hinting, illustrating, implying, tagging, labeling, characterizing,and/or revealing.

In some embodiments, the efficient fact checking system is implementedsuch that responses, validity determinations and/or status presentationsare available in real-time or near real-time. By real-time, it is meantinstantaneously (e.g., within 1 second); whereas near real-time iswithin a few seconds (e.g., within 5 seconds). Furthermore, since themonitoring, processing, fact checking and providing status are all ableto be performed automatically without user intervention, real-time alsomeans faster than having a human perform the search and presentingresults. Depending on the implementation, in some embodiments, theindication is presented in at most 1 second, at most several seconds(e.g., at most 5 seconds), at most a minute (not real-time), at mostseveral minutes or by the end of a show. In some embodiments, the timeamount (e.g., at most 1 second) begins once a user pauses in typing,once a phrase has been communicated, once a phrase has been determined,at the end of a sentence, once an item is flagged, or another point in asequence. For example, as soon as a phrase is detected, the efficientfact checking system checks the fact, returns a result and displays anindication based on the result in less than 1 second—clearly much fasterthan a human performing a search, analyzing the search results and thentyping a result to be displayed on a screen.

In some embodiments, fewer or more steps are implemented. Furthermore,in some embodiments, the order of the steps is modified. In someembodiments, the steps are performed on the same device, and in someembodiments, one or more of the steps, or parts of the steps, areseparately performed and/or performed on separate devices. In someembodiments, each of the steps 100, 102, 104 and 106 occur or are ableto occur in real-time or non-real-time. Any combination of real-time andnon-real-time steps is possible such as all real-time, none real-timeand everything in between.

FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of an exemplary computing device 200configured to implement the efficient fact checking method according tosome embodiments. The computing device 200 is able to be used toacquire, store, compute, process, communicate and/or display informationincluding, but not limited to, text, images, videos and audio. In someexamples, the computing device 200 is able to be used to monitorinformation, process the information, fact check the information and/orprovide a status of the information. In general, a hardware structuresuitable for implementing the computing device 200 includes a networkinterface 202, a memory 204, a processor 206, I/O device(s) 208, a bus210 and a storage device 212. The choice of processor is not critical aslong as a suitable processor with sufficient speed is chosen. The memory204 is able to be any conventional computer memory known in the art. Thestorage device 212 is able to include a hard drive, CDROM, CDRW, DVD,DVDRW, flash memory card, solid state drive or any other storage device.The computing device 200 is able to include one or more networkinterfaces 202. An example of a network interface includes a networkcard connected to an Ethernet or other type of LAN. The I/O device(s)208 are able to include one or more of the following: keyboard, mouse,monitor, display, printer, modem, touchscreen, touchpad,speaker/microphone, voice input device, button interface, hand-waving,body-motion capture, touchless 3D input, joystick, remote control,brain-computer interface/direct neural interface/brain-machineinterface, camera, and other devices. In some embodiments, the hardwarestructure includes multiple processors and other hardware to performparallel processing. Fact checking application(s) 230 used to performthe monitoring, processing, fact checking and providing are likely to bestored in the storage device 212 and memory 204 and processed asapplications are typically processed. More or fewer components shown inFIG. 2 are able to be included in the computing device 200. In someembodiments, fact checking hardware 220 is included. Although thecomputing device 200 in FIG. 2 includes applications 230 and hardware220 for implementing the fact checking, the fact checking method is ableto be implemented on a computing device in hardware, firmware, softwareor any combination thereof. For example, in some embodiments, the factchecking applications 230 are programmed in a memory and executed usinga processor. In another example, in some embodiments, the fact checkinghardware 220 is programmed hardware logic including gates specificallydesigned to implement the method.

In some embodiments, the fact checking application(s) 230 includeseveral applications and/or modules. Modules include a monitoring modulefor monitoring information, a processing module for processing (e.g.,converting) information, a fact checking module for fact checkinginformation and a providing module for providing a status of theinformation. In some embodiments, modules include one or moresub-modules as well. In some embodiments, fewer or additional modulesare able to be included. In some embodiments, the applications and/orthe modules are located on different devices. For example, a deviceperforms monitoring, processing, and fact checking, but the providing isperformed on a different device, or in another example, the monitoringand processing occurs on a first device, the fact checking occurs on asecond device and the providing occurs on a third device. Anyconfiguration of where the applications/modules are located is able tobe implemented such that the fact checking system is executed.

Examples of suitable computing devices include, but are not limited to apersonal computer, a laptop computer, a computer workstation, a server,a mainframe computer, a handheld computer, a personal digital assistant,a pager, a telephone, a fax machine, a cellular/mobile telephone, asmart appliance, a gaming console, a digital camera, a digitalcamcorder, a camera phone, a smart phone/device (e.g., a Droid® or aniPhone®), a portable music player (e.g., an iPod®), a tablet (e.g., aniPad®), a video player, an e-reader (e.g., Kindle™), a DVDwriter/player, an HD (e.g., Blu-ray®) or ultra high densitywriter/player, a television, a copy machine, a scanner, a car stereo, astereo, a satellite, a DVR (e.g., TiVo®), a smart watch/jewelry, smartdevices, a home entertainment system or any other suitable computingdevice.

FIG. 3 illustrates a network of devices configured to implement factchecking according to some embodiments. The network of devices 300 isable to include any number of devices and any various devices including,but not limited to, a computing device (e.g., a tablet) 302, atelevision 304, a smart device 306 (e.g., a smart phone) and a source308 (e.g., a database) coupled through a network 310 (e.g., theInternet). The source device 308 is able to be any device containingsource information including, but not limited to, a searchable database,web pages, transcripts, statistics, historical information, or any otherinformation or device that provides information. The network 310 is ableto any network or networks including, but not limited to, the Internet,an intranet, a LAN/WAN/MAN, wireless, wired, Ethernet, satellite, acombination of networks, or any other implementation of communicating.The devices are able to communicate with each other through the network310 or directly to each other. One or more of the devices is able to bean end user device, a media organization, a company and/or anotherentity. In some embodiments, peer-to-peer sourcing is implemented. Forexample, the source of the data to be compared with is not on acentralized source but is found on peer sources.

FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing efficientfact checking using a broadening implementation approach according tosome embodiments. In some embodiments, the step 104 of fact checkingutilizes a broadening implementation approach. In the step 400, an exactmatch fact check is implemented. For example, the phrase “the Presidentlied about taxes going up” has been parsed out for fact checking. In thestep 400, that exact phrase is searched for within source information.If the exact phrase is found in a sufficient number of sources (e.g.,above a lower threshold), then a result is returned (e.g., true), in thestep 402. If the exact phrase is not found (e.g., equal to or below thelower threshold of sources), then a second fact check implementation isutilized, in the step 404. For example, the second fact check implementsa pattern matching search. The pattern matching search is able to beimplemented in any manner, for example, pattern matching utilizessubject-verb-object matching to determine if the same or a similar itemmatches. Any type of pattern matching is able to be implemented. If thesecond fact check returns with sufficient confidence (e.g., number ofmatches and/or sources above a lower threshold or a pattern matchingconfidence score above a lower threshold), then a result is returned, inthe step 406. If the second fact check does not return with sufficientconfidence, then a third fact check is implemented, in the step 408. Forexample, the third fact check implements a natural language search. Ifthe third fact check returns with sufficient confidence (e.g., above anatural language confidence lower threshold or number of matches above alower threshold), then a result is returned, in the step 410. If thethird fact check does not return with sufficient confidence, then anegative result or some other result is returned, or no result isreturned, in the step 412. For example, a negative result indicates that“the fact check did not find any support” or “fact unverified” or anyother result to indicate that the fact check did not determine a result.In some embodiments, an indication of which fact check search returnedthe result is provided. For example, if an exact match was not found,but pattern matching provided a satisfactory result, then “no exactmatch, but result by pattern matching” is indicated. Although only threefact check implementations are described herein, any number ofimplementations are able to be implemented and used before returning anegative result. In some embodiments, the subsequent fact check isbroader in scope than the previous fact check. For example, searchingfor an exact phrase is considered to be very narrow, and patternmatching allows for a larger number of potential matches to be found,and a natural language search allows for an even larger number ofpotential matches to be found. Depending on the implementation, patternmatching could be broader or narrower than a natural language search;thus, the order of the implementations could be modified. In someembodiments, the different searches are performed sequentially (e.g.,first exact match, then pattern matching only if exact match did notreturn a result, and so on). In some embodiments, the different searchesare run in parallel but a broader search result is only used if anarrower search does not return a result (e.g., only use patternmatching result if exact match does not return a result). In someembodiments, both (or more) results are used/presented. In someembodiments, the exact phrases to be compared with are only fact-basedphrases or only opinion-based phrases, and in some embodiments, thephrases are fact-based phrases and opinion-based phrases.

FIG. 5 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing efficientfact checking using a broadening source approach according to someembodiments. In some embodiments, the step 104 of fact checking utilizesa broadening source approach. In the step 500, information to be factchecked is compared with a narrow source. For example, the narrow sourceis a single database stored on a local device. Other examples of narrowsources are a single document, a single document on a local device, adesignated fact checking database or a single web page. If the factcheck determines a sufficient result (e.g., information matches or isverified by the narrow source), then a result is returned (e.g.,validated), in the step 502. If the fact check does not find a match,then a broader scope of sources is utilized (e.g., many databases storedwithin a dedicated set of “cloud” devices), in the step 504. If asufficient result is determined (e.g., a number above a lower thresholdof sources agree or disagree with the information to be fact checked),then a result is returned, in the step 506. If the broader fact checkdoes not find a match, then an even broader scope of sources is utilized(e.g., the entire Web), in the step 508. If a sufficient result isdetermined (e.g., a number above a lower threshold of sources agree ordisagree with the information to be fact checked), then a result isreturned, in the step 510. If the even broader fact check does not finda match, then a result indicating a negative result, some other result,or no result is indicated, in the step 512. In some embodiments,additional broadening is implemented. In other words, the fact checkingis not limited to three rounds of sources. In some embodiments, theefficient fact checking utilizes pipelining. In some embodiments, thedifferent searches are performed sequentially. In some embodiments, thedifferent searches are run in parallel but a broader search result isonly used if a narrower search does not return a result. In someembodiments, the narrowest source is a fact checked database, a broadersource is a broader fact checked database, and an even broader source isfact checked web sites. In some embodiments, a narrow source is a factchecked source, a broader source is a partially fact checked source(e.g., some of the source has been fact checked), and an even broadersource is a non-fact checked source. In some embodiments, multipleresults are returned (e.g., narrow and broad).

Although specific sources have been described, any narrowing/broadeningis able to be implemented. In some embodiments, “narrow” is determinedbased on size or number. For example, a database with 10 entries isnarrower than a database with 1000 entries. In another example, a singledatabase regardless of size of the database is narrower than 1000databases. In some embodiments, the narrow source or sources includessources that have been fact checked, and broader sources have not beenfact checked.

In another example of narrow/broad sources, a narrow source is a sourcecontrolled by a media or technology company, and if a result is notdetermined using that source, crowdsourced data is used, and if a resultis not determined using the crowdsourced data, then the Web is used forfact checking.

In some embodiments, fact checking utilizes sources on devices ofdiffering speeds. For example, source information on a local cache isused first, then source information on a Random Access Memory (RAM) isused, then source information on a hard drive is used, and then sourceinformation on distributed storage is used last for fact checking. Inthis example, quicker (meaning faster access times) sources are usedfirst, followed by slower sources if a result is not found. In someembodiments, most recent, most popular, and/or most commonquotes/information are stored in the quicker storage (e.g., cache), andthe least recent, least popular, least common quotes/information arestored in the slower storage (e.g., distributed storage). In someembodiments, common variants of recent, popular, and/or commoninformation are stored (locally) as well. For example, a similar commentwith one or two of the words changed or replaced by synonyms. In someembodiments, the fact checking using the different sources is performedsequentially. In some embodiments, the fact checking using the differentsources is performed in parallel. In some embodiments, only facts arestored in the cache or in devices faster than a hard drive (e.g., cacheand RAM). In some embodiments, only facts are stored on faster devices(e.g., a hard drive or faster) and only opinions are stored on slowerdevices (e.g., distributed source devices). In some embodiments, higherconfidence score fact check results are stored on devices with fasteraccess times. For example, if a cache is able to store 1,000 fact checkresults, the 1,000 fact check results with the highest confidence scoreare stored in the cache, and the next highest fact check results arestored on RAM, and so on with the lowest confidence score results storedon the slowest devices. In another example, the storage includes varyingspeeds of servers, hard drives, locations on hard drives, and other datastorage devices. For example, the most popular or relevant sources arestored on an extremely fast server, and less popular/relevant sourcesare stored on a slower server, and even less popular/relevant sourcesare stored on an even slower server.

FIG. 6 illustrates a flowchart of a flowchart of a method ofimplementing efficient fact checking using faster access devicesaccording to some embodiments. In some embodiments, the step 104 of factchecking utilizes a faster access approach. In the step 600, informationto be fact checked is compared with source information on a fast accessdevice. For example, the source information is stored on a cache (whichhas faster access times than RAM or a hard drive) or on a faster serverthan other servers. If the fact check determines a sufficient result(e.g., information matches or is verified by the source on the fastaccess device), then a result is returned (e.g., validated), in the step602. If the fact check does not find a match, then a source on a slowerdevice (e.g., RAM is slower than cache or a second server is slower thanthe fast server) is utilized, in the step 604. If a sufficient result isdetermined (e.g., a number above a lower threshold of sources agree ordisagree with the information to be fact checked), then a result isreturned, in the step 606. If the slower source fact check does not finda match, then an even slower source device is utilized (e.g., hard drivehas a slower access time than RAM or third server is slower than secondserver), in the step 608. If a sufficient result is determined (e.g., anumber above a lower threshold of sources agree or disagree with theinformation to be fact checked), then a result is returned, in the step610. If the even slower fact check does not find a match, then a resultindicating a negative result, some other result, or no result isindicated, in the step 612. In some embodiments, additional slowersources are implemented. In other words, the fact checking is notlimited to three rounds of sources. In some embodiments, the efficientfact checking utilizes pipelining. In some embodiments, the differentsearches are performed sequentially. In some embodiments, the differentsearches are run in parallel but a slower search result is only used ifa narrower search does not return a result. In some embodiments,multiple results are returned (e.g., fast and slower).

FIG. 7 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing efficientfact checking using a keyword-based source approach according to someembodiments. In the step 700, a keyword or keywords (or phrases) aredetected in the information. For example, it is detected that acommentator is discussing “global warming” and “taxes.” In the step 702,only source information classified by the keywords “global warming” and“taxes” are utilized for fact checking. Instead of looking at allsources to confirm any information, the source information utilized isfound in source information classified as related to “global warming”and “taxes.” If the comparison using the source information in the step702 produces a sufficient result, then the result is returned in thestep 704, and the process ends. If the comparison does not produce aresult, then, in the step 706, the comparison uses broader sources suchas sources that are related to only a single keyword such as “taxes.” Ifthat comparison returns a sufficient result, in the step 708, then theprocess ends. If further comparisons are needed, then the scope ofsource information broadens again, in the step 710, and sourcesclassified with keywords related to keywords found in the informationare used. For example, instead of just using “taxes” and “globalwarming,” sources under classifications of: “economics,” “finance,” and“weather” are utilized. If a result is found, then the result isreturned, in the step 712. In some embodiments, if a result is still notfound, the process ends, with a negative result or no result returned,in the step 714, and in some embodiments, further expansion of thesources is implemented. In some embodiments, fewer or additional stepsare implemented. In an example, sources are classified as globalwarming→NJ→2014, then global warming→NJ, and global warming as thebroadest of the three. In some embodiments, the fact checking using thedifferent sources is performed sequentially. In some embodiments, thefact checking using the different sources is performed in parallel. Insome embodiments, the keywords are determined based on previous factcheck results. In some embodiments, the keywords are fact-basedkeywords.

In some embodiments, source information is narrowed by detectingtopics/keywords or other information. For example, if the topic of“global warming” is detected, then only sources that discuss or areclassified as relating to “global warming” are used. Further, if “globalwarming” and “Hawaii” are discussed, then the source information isnarrowed further to sources that discuss “global warming” and “Hawaii.”In some embodiments, the information is continuously analyzed forkeywords to determine which sources to utilize. In some embodiments,after the narrow search is utilized, if satisfactory results are notdetermined, then the search expands and progressively uses broadersearches (e.g., sources not discussing “global warming” but discussing arelated subject such as “weather”).

In some embodiments, the efficient fact checking implementations ofFIGS. 4, 5, 6 and 7 and/or other implementations are utilized together.For example, an exact match search is implemented on a local cache usingonly keyword-classified source information before any other comparisonsare performed, and the comparisons broaden/narrow from there. Additionalexamples include: exact match on cache, then exact match on RAM, exactmatch on hard drive, exact match on other locations, then patternmatching on cache, pattern matching on RAM, pattern matching on otherlocations, then natural language search on cache, natural languagesearch on RAM, and natural language search on other locations. Inanother example, an exact match on cache is used first, then a patternmatch on cache, then a natural language search on cache, then an exactmatch on RAM, and so on. Any combination of the efficient searches/factchecking is possible. In some embodiments, the fact checking processcontinues until a result is found or a timeout is determined (e.g.,after 0.5 ms of searching and no result is determined, the process timesout).

FIG. 8 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing reverse factchecking according to some embodiments. In the step 800, phrases, quotesand/or other information/content are stored. For example, quotes arestored in a database. Additionally, a response corresponding to theinformation is stored. For example, the stored response is a fact checkresult or information disproving misinformation or confirminginformation. In the step 802, information is analyzed (e.g., monitoredand/or processed). For example, broadcast information is monitored,converted, parsed, and compared with the stored information. In the step804, if the stored information is detected, then the stored response ispresented (e.g., displayed on the screen). In some embodiments, fewer oradditional steps are implemented.

In some embodiments, reverse fact checking is implemented by storingphrases and/or quotes that are popular/commonly used but are incorrect(e.g., Obamacare has death panels). In some embodiments, determiningwhich phrases/quotes to store is performed manually or automatically.For example, political analysts determine information worth storing. Inanother example, crowdsourcing is used in determining which informationto store, such as users flagging the same content. In another example,if a quote is re-tweeted (or digitally quoted/re-sent) by a number ofpeople above a lower threshold, then the information is stored. Inaddition to storing the phrases/quotes, a response is stored.Determining the response is able to be performed manually (e.g., bycrowdsourcing) or automatically. In an example, if the quote stored is:“global warming is a hoax,” an exemplary response is “actually 97% ofscientists believe global warming is a significant man made problem.”Modifications of the phrases/quotes are stored as well and are matchedwith the same response. For example, “global warming is a scam” is alsostored. Instead of fact checking content, the set of phrases/quotes aremonitored for, and if detected, the response is displayed. In someembodiments, the response includes highlighting the quote (e.g., turningit red), a text response, an audible alert, and/or any other effect.

FIG. 9 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementingpriority-based fact checking according to some embodiments. In the step900, information is monitored. In the step 902, information is processed(e.g., converted and parsed). In the step 904, information segments aregiven a priority. In the step 906, a highest priority informationsegment is fact checked and removed from the priority queue. In the step908, the fact check result is presented. The process repeats such thatthe highest priority information segment remaining is fact checked andthe result is presented, and the process continues until there are nosegments to be fact checked. In some embodiments, fewer or additionalsteps are implemented.

In some embodiments, information and/or facts are prioritized, and thehighest priority items are fact checked first with lower priority itemsfact checked later. In some embodiments, higher priority is given toinformation that is related to a specific topic (e.g., the topic beingdiscussed) or based on a previously defined topic list which ranksimportance. For example, it is determined the topic being discussed is“taxes” based on detected keywords, so a segment regarding “loweringtaxes” is the same topic and is given a higher priority than a segmentregarding “gun control” which is a different topic. In another example,a topic list could have taxes as a highest priority, followed byemployment, followed by the environment, and so on until the lowestpriority item. In some embodiments, user(s) are able todefine/prioritize the topic list. In some embodiments, priority dependson the speaker. For example, a guest's comments are given higherpriority than the host's comments or vice versa. In another example, aprioritized speaker list is utilized. For example, Host X and Host Y arein a highest priority grouping, Host Z is in a second highest prioritygrouping, and so on. In some embodiments, there is an “other” prioritygrouping for people not on the list by name. In some embodiments, theprioritized speaker list changes based on validity ratings. For example,if a speaker's validity rating is below a first threshold, then thespeaker is in a highest priority group, and if the validity rating isbelow a second threshold but above the first, then he is in the secondhighest priority group and so on. Also, if a speaker's validity ratingdrops, then he goes up on the priority list to ensure his comments arefact checked, and vice versa, if a speaker's validity rating increases,then he goes down on the priority list. The validity rating is able tobe based on fact checking results of comments made by an entity or anyother information provided by the entity. For example, if a person makesfactually accurate comments, then the user is given a 10 (on a scale of1 to 10) for a validity rating. In another example, if a user makes manyfactually inaccurate comments, the user may receive a 2 out of 10 for avalidity rating. Other factors are able to be used in determining avalidity rating such as severity of the inaccuracy, the subject/topic ofthe misinformation, hypocrisy and/or controversies. In some embodiments,users are able to select a priority for a speaker/entity. In someembodiments, by prioritizing information, the fact checking results areable to be better presented in real-time. In some embodiments, contentthat is a lower priority and does not meet a timeout threshold is notfact checked. For example, a comment is viewed as a low priority and 3seconds have passed without obtaining a fact check result, so thecomment is deleted from a fact check queue. Priority is able to be basedon time, speaker/entity, classification, and/or any other factor. Forexample, an older segment with the same classification has a higherpriority than a newer segment. In another example, a segment in a higherpriority classification is given a higher priority than an older, lowerpriority classification. In some embodiments, two (or more) separatequeues are implemented, with the first queue being segments above apriority threshold and the second queue being segments below a prioritythreshold. The segments in the first queue are fact checked inreal-time, and the segments in the second queue are not fact checked inreal-time. For example, the segments in the second queue are factchecked but the results are provided in the background or at the end ofa show or some other feature that does not disrupt the live show. Insome embodiments, the separate queues are fact checked in parallel.

FIG. 10 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking byseparation according to some embodiments. In the step 1000, informationis monitored. In the step 1002, the information is processed. Forexample, the information is separated into sentences (or phrases orsegments), and the sentences are separated into words. In the step 1004,the processed information is analyzed. For example, the number of wordsin the sentence are counted. In the step 1006, the processed informationis fact checked using the analysis. In the step 1008, the fact checkresult is presented. In some embodiments, additional or fewer steps areimplemented.

In some embodiments, fact checking is implemented by separating contentinto sentences or phrases, separating the sentences into words, andcounting the number of words in the sentence. Then, each word iscompared with source information, and the source informationspecifically includes sentences that contain the same number of words asthe sentence being fact checked. For example, if a sentence has 6 words,then the words are compared with 6-word phrases in sources. If 1 wordmatches of the 6 words, then the match is poor. If all 6 words match,then the match is close. In some embodiments, then the order of thewords is analyzed. If the order of the words is the same, then the matchis exact. In some embodiments, specific differences are searched forsuch as “not” or other negative words. In some embodiments, theinformation is compared with a slightly longer phrase, and a negativeword is searched for. For example, if a sentence is 6 words long, thenit is compared with sentences of 7 words long including the word “not”or another negative. In some embodiments, each word is put into a datastructure including the order of the words, and the data structure iscompared with similar source data structures. In some embodiments, thisimplementation is utilized with classifications of sources to narrow thecomparisons. For example, instead of comparing a 6-word sentence withall 6-word sentences, it is detected that the 6-word sentence includesthe words “global” and “warming,” so only sentences classified under“global warming” are used as source information.

In some embodiments, this implementation is used with other efficiencyimprovements; for example, storing some source information on a cache,RAM, and so on, or the other efficiency improvements are implementedwithout utilizing the classified source information implementation.

In some embodiments, the efficient fact checking system separatescontent into fact-based information and other information such asopinions or other commentary. After the fact-based information isseparated out, then only that information is fact checked, and the otherinformation is ignored. The fact-based information is able to bedistinguished from the other information using any implementation suchas based on the format of the information, detecting keywords, and anyother implementation. For example, if the key phrase, “in my opinion” isdetected, then the rest of the sentence until a stop is determined isviewed as not fact-based.

FIG. 11 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing a randomfact checking system such that not all content is fact checked accordingto some embodiments. In the step 1100, information is monitored. In thestep 1102, the information is processed. In the step 1104, random factchecking is implemented, and results are presented. The fact checking isable to be randomized in any manner. For example, if the information isparsed into 10 segments, 3 of the 10 segments are automatically chosenat random to be fact checked. In another example, every other segment isfact checked. In another example, fact checking occurs every 15 seconds,such that any segments parsed before the 15 second period arediscarded/ignored. In the step 1106, the results of the random factcheck are presented. In some embodiments, fewer or additional steps areimplemented. In some embodiments, other aspects are randomized. Forexample, monitoring is randomized, such that random segments aremonitored which are fact checked. Furthering the example, during a 30minute program, monitoring only occurs for 30 seconds and then is turnedoff for 30 seconds. In another example, processing is randomized suchthat all information may be monitored but only random segments areprocessed and fact checked. In some embodiments, random monitoring,processing and fact checking are utilized together. For example, onlyrandom segments are monitored, and of those randomly monitored segments,only random segments are processed, and of those randomly processedsegments, only random processed segments are fact checked.

In some embodiments, segments (after processing information) with alength greater than or less than a threshold are fact checked. Forexample, segments are determined as described herein, and words arecounted. Furthering the example, only information segments that havemore than 10 words are fact checked. In another example, onlyinformation segments that have 5 words or fewer are fact checked.

In some embodiments, the efficient fact checking implementationsdescribed herein are utilized together according to some embodiments.For example, content is classified, content is separated into facts andother items, and only facts are fact checked, content and speakers areprioritized, so that only the highest priority content is fact checked,and efficient use of source information is utilized including thesoftware and hardware implementations described herein.

In some embodiments, multiple fact checking implementations are utilizedinitially, and then the best fact checking implementation is selected.The multiple fact checking implementations are able to be different inany manner such as using different sources, using different sourcedetermination methods, using different source weighting/selectionmethods, using different searching methods, using differentcomparison/result determination methods, using differentparsing/processing implementations, using different monitoringimplementations (e.g., standard, random), and/or any other possibledifferences in fact checking. The best fact checking implementation isable to be determined based on the accuracy of the results and/or thespeed of the results of each implementation. In some embodiments, thebest fact checking implementation is determined by iteratively narrowingthe possible implementations by eliminating one or more implementationsafter each iteration until only one remains (e.g., eliminating theslowest and/or least accurate implementation). For example, fivesegments are parsed out of information, and five different fact checkingimplementations are used to fact check the segments. Then, the resultsof each are compared manually or automatically (e.g., compare confidence%). Then, the worst (e.g., lowest confidence) fact checkingimplementation is removed. The process repeats until only oneimplementation remains. In another example, all fact checkingimplementations with a confidence score below a lower threshold areremoved. In some embodiments, the process of determining a best factchecking implementation starts over for each new content (e.g., newvideo, new show, new channel). In some embodiments, the best factchecking implementation is stored and used for the same program,channel, or similar content (e.g., same format such as a news program orsame host). For example, after the best fact checking implementation isdetermined for a 1 hour news show on CNN, then that implementation isused for that show (and, in some embodiments, for future occurrences ofthat show and/or other news shows). For example, shows, web sites,social media content and/or any other content is classified, and a bestfact checking implementation is determined and used for eachclassification. In some embodiments, the process of determining a bestimplementation occurs very quickly, for example, within the first minuteof a program. In some embodiments, the process of determining a bestimplementation occurs in parallel while using a previously determinedbest implementation to fact check the current information. In someembodiments, the process of determining a best implementation occurs ina prior program. In some embodiments, a competitive best fact checkingimplementation is utilized such that the implementations are narrowed tothe best two, and the best two are continuously used, and then theresults of the best two are used or compared to determine an ultimateresult. In some embodiments, the best fact check implementations aredetermined for different genres (e.g., sports, politics, economics). Insome embodiments, the best fact checking implementations are determinedfor channels/networks. In some embodiments, the best fact checkingimplementations are determined for types of content (e.g., news versusopinion or tweets versus webpages). In some embodiments, one or more ofthe best fact checking implementations are stored, so that, for example,when a user changes channels, the best fact checking implementation forthat channel is able to be used. In some embodiments, several best factchecking implementations are determined and displayed for users toselect and use. In some embodiments, the determination of a best factchecking implementation is performed constantly or periodically (e.g.,hourly, daily, monthly). In some embodiments, if a fact checkingimplementation returns results below a threshold, then thatimplementation is not used again (e.g., not even for comparisonpurposes). For example, if an implementation performs so poorly that itdoes not meet a minimum threshold, that implementation is removed from adatabase or queue of implementation to compare. In some embodiments,users are able to generate a fact checking implementation to compete forthe best implementation. For example, users are able to select sources,exclude sources, provide specific weights for sources, and/or any othermodification to an implementation, and then use that implementation tocompare with other fact checking implementations. In some embodiments,after a best fact checking implementation is determined, minormodifications of that best fact checking implementation are comparedwith the best fact checking implementation to determine if there is abetter fact checking implementation. For example, a best fact checkingimplementation is determined. Then, that best fact checkingimplementation is compared with the same best fact checkingimplementation with a modification of using 10 fewer sources. It is thendetermined which is the best of those two. In some embodiments, the bestfact checking implementation is determined using past information (e.g.,yesterday's show), so that the best implementation is availableimmediately at the beginning of today's show.

FIG. 12 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking byelimination according to some embodiments. In the step 1200, a factcheck implementation comparison occurs. The process repeats until asingle fact check implementation remains. In some embodiments, fewer oradditional steps are implemented.

Hardware

In some embodiments, fact checking is implemented utilizing abendable/flexible screen. For example, a video or text is displayed on ascreen, and the device (e.g., smart phone) detects the user bending thescreen (e.g., based on a change in pressure or shape), then the devicefact checks what was on the screen when the screen was bent. A factcheck result is then displayed.

In some embodiments, the device takes a snapshot of the screen upondetecting the screen bending, converts the captured image to text, andthen performs fact checking. In some embodiments, a user is watching avideo on his smart device, and upon screen bending detection, the videois determined (e.g., by analyzing the url of the video), and then factcheck information is retrieved from the cloud for that specified videoand displayed on the device. In some embodiments, the curvature of thebendable screen is used to hide false information. For example, truthfulinformation is displayed properly, but text that is false or misleadingis either hidden by the curve of the screen or is not clear because ofthe curve of the screen. In some embodiments, users are able to flagcontent as questionable or another characterization by bending thescreen. For example, a user is watching a video on his bendable mobiledevice, and hears something that he does not think is accurate. The userbends the screen, which causes a clip (including, for example, 20seconds of the video before/after the bend), text, and/or,identification information to be sent to the cloud to be fact checked,or to be stored, and if a sufficient number of users (e.g., above athreshold) indicate an item is questionable, then the item is factchecked.

FIG. 13 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing a bendablescreen for fact checking according to some embodiments. In the step1300, information is presented on a device (e.g., tablet, phone, watch)with a bendable screen. In the step 1302, a bend is detected in thedevice (e.g., detecting pressure from a user bending the device). In thestep 1304, the device processes and/or fact checks the information onthe screen. In some embodiments, fact checking includes sending theinformation or identification information to another device or devices(e.g., the cloud) and receiving a fact check result. In the step 1306,the fact check result is presented on the bendable screen. As describedabove, in some embodiments, the fact check result is displayed utilizingthe bend of the screen. In some embodiments, a representation (e.g., anicon or picture) of an entity is displayed, and based on the factchecking results, the representation is moved closer and closer to thebend until the representation is blurred or hidden by the bend. Forexample, as misinformation is detected, the representation is movedcloser to the bend, and after a threshold of misinformation is reached,the representation is obscured by the bend. In some embodiments, feweror additional steps are implemented.

FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary bendable device according to someembodiments. The device 1400 is shown in a standard straight or unbentconfiguration. The device 1400′ is shown in a bent configuration.

FIG. 15 illustrates a multi-tiered or nested smartphone or smart deviceaccording to some embodiments. The nested device shown in view 1500appears the same as a standard smartphone. The nested device includes amain body 1502. The main body is similar to a standard smart phone andincludes standard components such as a case, screen, memory, aprocessor, and any other smart phone components. The device isprogrammed (e.g., contains an application) for fact checking asdescribed herein. The internal components such as the memory andprocessor are located such that there is a cavity 1504 within the mainbody 1502. For example, the memory and processor are positioned in thetop or bottom of the main body 1502 above or below the cavity 1504. Thecavity 1504 is capable of storing a second body/screen 1506 which isable to slide out of the main body 1502 in any manner. For example, thesecond body 1506 is on a track that enables the second body 1506 toslide out from the main body 1502. The slid out second body 1506 isshown in view 1500′. In some embodiments, the second body 1506 iscompletely removable from the main body 1502, and in some embodiments,the second body 1506 is not removable. The second body 1506 isconfigured similar to the main body 1502 in that it also includes acavity 1508 which is capable of storing a third body 1510. Similar tothe second body 1506, the third body 1510 is able to slide out of thesecond body 1506. The slid out third body 1510 is shown in view 1500″.By using additional screens, in some embodiments, the main content(e.g., video or text) is able to be displayed on the main body 1502, andfact check results are able to be displayed on the second body 1506. Insome embodiments, the main content is on the second body 1506, and thefact checking result is on the main body 1502. Additionally,advertisements related to the fact check result and/or the main contentare able to be displayed on the third body 1510. Other information isable to be displayed on the third body 1510, such as past fact checkinformation, validity rating information and/or other fact checkinformation. In some embodiments, the nesting device includes only twobodies (a first body and a second body), and in some embodiments, thenesting device includes additional bodies. In some embodiments, usersare able to move content among/between bodies (e.g., by swiping).

FIG. 16 illustrates a foldable/wallet smartphone which includes two orthree screens according to some embodiments. The foldable/walletsmartphone is programmed (e.g., contains an application) for factchecking as described herein. The wallet smartphone shown in FIG. 16includes 3 bodies, a first body 1602, a second body 1604, and a thirdbody 1606. In the view 1600, the wallet smartphone is shown in an openconfiguration where all three screens are viewable. In some embodiments,in the first body 1602, main content is displayed, in the second body1604, fact check results are displayed, and in the third body 1606, anadvertisement or other information is displayed. In some embodiments,the bodies are coupled using hinges or another device that enables thewallet smartphone to close into a closed configuration as shown in view1600′. The wallet smartphone is able to close similar to a tri-foldwallet. In some embodiments, the wallet smartphone closes so that all ofthe screens are on the inside for protection, and in some embodiments,the wallet smartphone closes so that one or two of the screens are onthe outside for ease of use. In some embodiments, the hinges are able tobe operated in either direction so that a user is able to choose theclosed configuration. In some embodiments, users are able to movecontent among/between bodies (e.g., by swiping).

In some embodiments, the wallet smartphone is a bi-fold or clamshellconfiguration with two screens (one screen on one shell and a secondscreen on the second shell). The main content is able to be displayed onone screen and fact check information is able to be displayed on thesecond screen. In some embodiments, additional screens/bodies/folds areimplemented.

In some embodiments, a cube-shaped smartphone is implemented for factchecking such that most or all of the sides are touchscreens. In someembodiments, the smartphone is a rectangular shape (similar to typicalsmartphone shapes) with most or all of the sides as touchscreens.

FIG. 17 illustrates a diagram of a smart device with multiple projectorsaround the edge of the device according to some embodiments. The smartdevice includes a body 1700 and a plurality of projectors 1702 which areconfigured to project fact checking results on a nearby surface (e.g.,surface below) such as a table top. In some embodiments, there is asingle projector, and in some embodiments, there are multipleprojectors. In some embodiments, one set of projectors (e.g., on a firstside of the device) is for presenting a first type of fact check result(e.g., false information), and a second set of projectors (e.g., on asecond side of the device) is for presenting a second type of fact checkresult (e.g., true information). The projectors are able to be any typeof projector and are able to be located anywhere on/in the device.

FIG. 18 illustrates a side view of a mobile device configured forprojecting fact checking results on the screen according to someembodiments. The device 1800 includes a projector 1802 (e.g., laserprojector) for projecting fact check results onto the screen of thedevice 1800 or elsewhere.

FIG. 19 illustrates a front view of a mobile device configured forprojecting fact checking results on the screen according to someembodiments. As shown, the text on the screen says “$5B,” but after afact check is performed, the projector 1802 projects a correction of“$5M” on the screen. The fact checking is able to be performed in anyway. Then, the projector 1802 projects the result on the screen of thedevice 1800, so that it is easily determinable which information is afact check result. The projector 1802 is able to be pivoted or moved,for example, from an open position to a closed position. Additionally,the projector is able to be configured to point elsewhere such as at atable, wall, or the user's hand.

Additional Implementations

FIG. 20 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing multipleaspects for fact checking according to some embodiments. In the step2000, body language of an entity is analyzed. In the step 2002,information from the entity is fact checked in conjunction with theanalysis of the body language information. In the step 2004, the formatof the information is analyzed. In the step 2006, a validity rating ofthe entity is analyzed. In the step 2008, a fact check result ispresented based on the combination of the previous steps. In someembodiments, fewer or additional steps are implemented. For example, insome embodiments, the fact check result is based solely on the bodylanguage analysis without fact checking Any combination of the steps2000-2006 is able to be implemented, including using each step alone.The steps are able to be implemented in any order.

In some embodiments, multiple aspects of fact checking are utilizedtogether for a more complete fact checking analysis. For example, thecontent or substance of information is fact checked as described herein.Additionally, the body language and speech of the entity is analyzed asdescribed herein. The format of the information is also analyzed asdescribed herein. Also, validity rating of the entity is able to be usedin determining the validity of current information presented by theentity. Then, all of this information/analysis is utilized to generate afinal fact check result. For example, the content fact check returns aresult of a 75% chance of what the entity just said is misleading. Bodylanguage analysis and speech analysis detected that the user is likelyproviding false information (+5% toward misleading). The format of theresponse as well as the validity rating of the entity also indicate thisentity provides misinformation often (+10% toward misleading).Therefore, the fact check result is a 90% likelihood that theinformation is false. The additional information is also able todecrease the likelihood the information is misleading. For example, ifthe content fact check results in a 75% likely misleading, but thevalidity rating of the entity is very positive, the final fact checkresult may be only 65% likely that the information is misleading.

In some embodiments, instead of providing a fact check result of true orfalse, a percentage is provided as well, such as 75% chance of false, or60% chance of false but 80% chance of hyperbole.

In some embodiments, fact checking is based on body language of anentity in addition to or instead of the verbal or textual content. Insome embodiments, using body language includes determining specificpoints on a user such as the user's forehead, chest, hands, fingers,mouth, cheeks, hair, arms, shoulders, legs, feet, eyes, chin, and/or anyother relevant body part. Then, using the specific points, it isdetermined if the specific points move in a pattern/manner that wouldsuggest the information from the user is true or false.

The body language analysis is able to learn, particularly, learn habitsof specific entities to determine the validity of the entity's speech.For example, if a user tends to blink when he is lying, this is able tobe learned by analyzing several television appearances. In anotherexample, if a user tends to yell when he is losing an argument, thisinformation is able to be learned, and then used the next time he isarguing to display to the user, “Bill is raising his voice again; helikely knows he is losing this argument.” In another example, pastanalysis is utilized to provide a percentage such as “based on pastanalysis, Bill raises his voice 85% of the time when he is lying.” Theanalysis is able to include fact checking information manually orautomatically during specific conditions such as while yelling.

The body language analysis is also able to determine if the entity'scomments are not synchronized with his expression. For example, anentity says, “I love this idea” and then takes two seconds to actuallysmile, the entity is likely not being truthful.

Speech analysis is able to be used in conjunction or instead of bodylanguage analysis as well. For example, detection of micro tremors isable to be used for speech analysis. The micro tremors indicatehesitation or other information about the speech.

In some embodiments, the tone or decibel-level of speech is used forfact checking. For example, if an entity is yelling, this is a negativeaspect of conversing and results in an increased likelihood of anegative rating for the content.

In some embodiments, fact checking is based on a format of information(e.g., a response to a question). For example, instead of fact checkingthe substance of the information or in addition to fact checking thesubstance of the information, the format of the information is used forfact checking. For example, if a response to a question is a question,then this makes the fact check result more likely to be “non-responsive”or “avoiding the question.” In some embodiments, fact checking is basedon previous fact checks of the same entity and learning behaviors of theentity. For example, if an entity typically responds with a questionwhen attempting to avoid answering the question, this information isused to suggest that the entity is avoiding the question. In anotherexample, if an entity repeats a question fully when attempting to stalland not answer the question, this information is used to suggest thatthe entity is avoiding the question.

In some embodiments, fact checking utilizes an entity's past history forfact checking. For example, if a person has previously been determinedto be providing misinformation, that person is fact checked moreclosely. For example, if the entity's validity rating is below athreshold, the person is fact checked using multiple fact checkers,manual fact checking, and/or utilizing a smaller set of sources (e.g.,only sources with a rating above a reliability/accuracy/ratingthreshold).

FIG. 21 illustrates a diagram of displaying fact checking results in acalendar format according to some embodiments. In the calendar format,the calendar is able to be for one or more channels, programs, timeslots, web pages, users, entities, and/or any other information. Forexample, a calendar for the program, “The News Situation Room” onNetwork Z is shown. The calendar is able to include icons such as X's,dots, circles, smiley faces, question marks, or any other icon torepresent a fact check result. For example, an X representsmisinformation, dots represent misleading information, circles representbiased information, and question marks represent questionableinformation. In some embodiments, the icons are color coded to indicatethe speaker/provider of the information (e.g., commentator X). In someembodiments, the icons are all the same type of character but with colorcoding to differentiate. For example, only dots are used, but redrepresents misinformation and blue represents questionable information.In some embodiments, the icons are color coded based onchannel/network/entity. In some embodiments, the icons areclickable/selectable for more information. For example, after a userselects an icon, the comment and the fact check result are presented. Insome embodiments, clicking on a day expands the view to presentadditional information for that day. In some embodiments, the calendaris easily expanded and contracted (e.g., zoom in to single hour and zoomout to 1 year calendar). For example, in the year view, months are shownwith several icons and a number next to each icon indicating how many ofeach characterization occurred in that month. In the day view, thedisplay is separated by hours and icons are displayed for each hour. Theexpansion and contraction is able to be by pinching fingers on thescreen or any other manner. In some embodiments, multiple channels aredisplayed for comparison purposes. In some embodiments, the multiplechannels are separated by hours, so that each show during a time periodis comparable with another show in that time period.

FIG. 22 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing anticipatoryfact checking according to some embodiments. In the step 2200,information is monitored. In the step 2202, the information isprocessed. In the step 2204, the processed information is analyzed(e.g., keywords are searched for within the information). In the step2206, anticipatory information is provided. In some embodiments,additional or fewer steps are implemented.

In some embodiments, anticipatory fact checking is implemented. Forexample, fact checking is performed before a statement is made. Forexample, a Republican mentions “Global Warming,” it can be preemptivelypointed out that Republican is going to argue it is not man made, andthe opposing side is going to argue it is with facts to support hisargument. The anticipatory fact checking is able to go further as wellsuch as retrieving recent comments/articles/data regarding the topic andpresenting an argument or comment based on that information. Forexample, the Republican is likely going to cite a recent study thatshowed temperatures are decreasing. Additional prior comments are ableto be analyzed. For example, comments made earlier in the same show,earlier that day, or even earlier are analyzed. Other elements are ableto be analyzed as well, such as each entity's position,company/organization, and/or any other relevant information toanticipate arguments, positions, and/or any other comments. Additionalelements are able to be used as well for anticipatory computing such asbody language, speech analysis, speech format, facial/voice recognitionand/any other information. After analyzing the information, anyanticipatory information is able to be presented to inform the userahead of time. The anticipatory computing is able to be used to project,in advance, topics and arguments based on show guests/hosts/otherinformation. For example, it is known that guest A is going to be onshow Z (for example, from television guide information available a dayor week before the show airs). Guest A is a climatologist and recentweather has been hot, so it can be anticipated that guest A will discussglobal warming. In some embodiments, the anticipatory fact checkingdetects an entity by facial recognition and detects keywords, and basedon the detected information, anticipates comments, topics ordiscussions, and provides anticipatory comments. In some embodiments,the anticipatory comments/information are compared with the actualcomments to determine if the anticipatory information ishelpful/accurate.

FIG. 23 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing questionablefact checking according to some embodiments. In the step 2300,information is monitored. In the step 2302, the information isprocessed. In the step 2304, the information is analyzed based onsentence structure, entity detection, past history of the entity,keyword detection, and/or topic detection. In the step 2306, a“questionable” alert is provided. In some embodiments, fewer oradditional steps are implemented.

In some embodiments, a questionable fact checker is implemented. Thequestionable fact checker is able to be implemented in any number ofways. In some embodiments, the questionable fact checker detects acomment with a keyword or phrase, and instead of performing a factcheck, simply alerts the user that the comment may be “questionable,” sothat the user may investigate further. In some embodiments, a speaker isdetected (e.g., using voice and/or facial recognition, titlerecognition, or other identification information) in addition to keyworddetection to provide the alert. For example, Speaker X is recognizedusing facial recognition, and based on previous fact checks of SpeakerX, it is known that he provides misinformation often (e.g., has a lowvalidity rating), particularly in relation to specific types of keywords(e.g, related to Democrats and taxes). Upon detection of the keywords“Obama” and “taxes,” an alert is presented that the information may bequestionable or incorrect. In some embodiments, entities andtopics/keywords are classified, so that if an entity from a firstclassification is detected with a keyword from a second classification,a “questionable” alert is presented. For example, Commentator Z isclassified in a first classification (e.g., conservative) and thekeyword “Obama” is classified in a second classification (e.g.,liberal), and when both are detected a “questionable” alert ispresented. Furthering the example, additional data indicates that whenthe commentator and that keyword are detected, the information istypically misleading based on previous data analysis. In someembodiments, a database of entities, keywords, recommended sources,and/or any other relevant information is stored to provide a“questionable” alert. In some embodiments, sources are recommended forresearching the questionable information. The recommendations are ableto be based on keywords detected, personal user information, and/or anyother relevant information. In some embodiments, no fact checking isperformed in real-time.

In some embodiments, it is determined how to display the fact checkresults based on a device's capabilities/qualities. For example, if thedevice is determined to be a television, then full text is displayed,but if the device is determined to be a tablet device, then partial textand icons are displayed, and if the device is determined to be a smartphone, then only icons are displayed. In another example, if the screensize of the device is greater than a first threshold, then full text isdisplayed, and if the screen size of the device is smaller than thefirst threshold but larger than a second threshold, then a partial textand icons are displayed, and if the screen size is smaller than thesecond threshold, then only icons are displayed. Determining the type ofdevice is able to be performed in any manner such as analyzing a datafile that indicates device specifications or based on a device name andlooking up the device name and specifications.

In some embodiments, to resolve an issue with a speaker speaking tooquickly, the fact checking system is able to record the information andslow down the information, and perform a fact check on the slowed downinformation. In some embodiments, slowed down information is able to beparsed easier. In some embodiments, slowed down information is comparedwith a slowed down word detection source (for example, both themonitored information and the source information are slowed down andcompared).

In some embodiments, the sources are rated using a rating system so thatsources that provide false or inaccurate information are rated as pooror unreliable and/or are not used, and sources that rarely providemisinformation are rated as reliable and are used and/or given moreweight than others. For example, if a source's rating falls or is belowa threshold, that source is not used in fact checking. In someembodiments, users are able to designate the threshold.

In some embodiments, source information is weighted. The sourceinformation is able to be weighted based on the size of the source. Forexample, a long article over 10 pages is given extra weight, and shortarticles are provided less weight. In an opposite example, a short,pithy article of 1 page is given extra weight, and long articles aregiven less weight.

In some embodiments, only “trusted” sites are used as sources. Forexample, “trusted” sites are ones verified by Verisign or anothervalidation site which provides a specialized certificate. In someembodiments, only sites that have been automatically and/or manuallychecked for factual accuracy are used as sources. For example, a specialfact checking group verifies web pages or web sites and gives each webpage or web site a rating (e.g., A-F).

In some embodiments, fact checking is implemented withoutmonitoring/listening. For example, fact check results and/or otherinformation are automatically provided in conjunction with content. Thefact checking is able to be performed manually or automatically, but theresults are embedded with the content and/or transmitted with thecontent and displayed at the appropriate times.

In some embodiments, a fact checking application is able to togglebetween email mode, television mode, web page mode, and/or any othermode. In some embodiments, the toggling is manual, and in someembodiments, the toggling is automatic. In some embodiments, thetoggling is automatic based on detecting a specific type of information(e.g., the device determines text is in an email format, or the devicedetermines a television is being watched by hearing the television audioor receiving a signal).

In some embodiments, technology is implemented to ignore extraneousinformation such as viewers talking during a television program, whenthe television program is being fact checked. For example, noisecanceling is implemented so that only the television program is “listedto.” In some embodiments, the noise canceling is implemented bymonitoring the television content in silence or near silence to acquiredistinct features of the television content, so that the appropriateinformation is monitored when the noise is present. Similarly, when webpage information is fact checked, each aspect of text is associated withan entity (by determining which entity corresponds with which text), sothat an entity is not blamed for misinformation made by another entity.In some embodiments, both television and user comments are fact checked.The fact check implementation determines and labels each speaker (e.g.,TV and Bob). Then, when a fact check result is presented, it is labeledwith the speaker's name and/or device.

In some embodiments, many or all devices in a home are operably coupledto listen to, send/receive, and/or fact check information. For example,a toaster in Room A hears, “I did not,” then the person walks into thenext room and the television hears “say that.” The segments are able tobe pieced together and fact checked. Send all information to a centraldevice which fact checks or sends complete segments to be fact checked.The devices are able to detect which device to user to provide theresult. For example, a user is detected in the family room, and thetelevision in that room is used to display the fact check result.

In some embodiments, the efficient fact checking system is a smartphoneapplication including, but not limited to, an iPhone®, Droid® orBlackberry® application. In some embodiments, a broadcaster performs thefact checking. In some embodiments, a user's television performs thefact checking. In some embodiments, a user's mobile device performs thefact checking and causes (e.g., sends) the results to be displayed onthe user's television and/or another device. In some embodiments, thetelevision sends the fact checking result to a smart phone.

Utilizing the efficient fact checking system, method and device dependson the implementation to some extent. In some implementations, atelevision broadcast uses fact checking to fact check what is said orshown to the viewers, and a mobile application, in some embodiments,uses fact checking to ensure a user provides factually correctinformation. Other examples include where web pages or social networkingcontent (e.g., tweet or Facebook® page) are processed, fact checkedefficiently, and a result is provided. The fact checking is able to beimplemented without user intervention. For example, if a user iswatching a news program, the fact checking is able to automaticallyoccur and present the appropriate information. In some embodiments,users are able to disable the fact checking if desired. Similarly, if auser implements fact checking on his mobile application, the factchecking occurs automatically. For a news company, the fact checking isalso able to be implemented automatically, so that once installed and/orconfigured, the news company does not need take any additional steps toutilize the fact checking. In some embodiments, the news company is ableto take additional steps such as adding sources. In some embodiments,news companies are able to disable the fact checking, and in someembodiments, news companies are not able to disable the fact checking toavoid tampering and manipulation of data. In some embodiments, one ormore aspects of the fact checking are performed manually.

In operation, the efficient fact checking system, method and deviceenable information to be fact checked in real-time and automatically(e.g., without user intervention). The monitoring, processing, factchecking and providing of status are each able to occur automatically,without user intervention. Results of the fact checking are able to bepresented nearly instantaneously, so that viewers of the information areable to be sure they are receiving accurate and truthful information.Additionally, the fact checking is able to clarify meaning, tone,context and/or other elements of a comment to assist a user or viewer.By utilizing the speed and breadth of knowledge that comes withautomatic, computational fact checking, the shortcomings of human factchecking are greatly overcome. With instantaneous or nearlyinstantaneous fact checking, viewers will not be confused as to whatinformation is being fact checked since the results are postedinstantaneously or nearly instantaneously versus when a fact check isperformed by humans and the results are posted minutes later. The rapidfact checking provides a significant advantage over past data analysisimplementations. Any of the steps described herein are able to beimplemented automatically. Any of the steps described herein are able tobe implemented in real-time or non-real-time.

Examples of Implementation Configurations:

Although the monitoring, processing, fact checking and indicating areable to occur on any device and in any configuration, these are somespecific examples of implementation configurations. Monitoring,processing, fact checking and providing all occur on a broadcaster'sdevices (or other emitters of information including, but not limited to,news stations, radio stations and newspapers). Monitoring, processingand fact checking occur on a broadcaster's devices, and providing occurson an end-user's device. Monitoring and processing occur on abroadcaster's devices, fact checking occurs on a broadcaster's devicesin conjunction with third-party devices, and providing occurs on anend-user's device. Monitoring occurs on a broadcaster's devices,processing and providing occur on an end-user's device, and factchecking occurs on third-party devices. Monitoring, processing, factchecking, and providing all occur on third-party devices. Monitoring,processing, fact checking, and providing all occur on an end-user'sdevice. Monitoring, processing and fact checking occur on a socialnetworking site's device, and providing occurs on an end-user's device.These are only some examples; other implementations are possible.Additionally, supplemental information is able to be monitored for,searched for, processed and/or provided using any of the implementationsdescribed herein.

Fact checking includes checking the factual accuracy and/or correctnessof information. The type of fact checking is able to be any form of factchecking such as checking historical correctness/accuracy, geographicalcorrectness/accuracy, mathematical correctness/accuracy, scientificcorrectness/accuracy, literary correctness/accuracy, objectivecorrectness/accuracy, subjective correctness/accuracy, and/or any othercorrectness/accuracy. Another way of viewing fact checking includesdetermining the correctness of a statement of objective reality or anassertion of objective reality. Yet another way of viewing fact checkingincludes determining whether a statement, segment or phrase is true orfalse.

Although some implementations and/or embodiments have been describedrelated to specific implementations and/or embodiments, and someaspects/elements/steps of some implementations and/or embodiments havebeen described related to specific implementations and/or embodiments,any of the aspects/elements/steps, implementations and/or embodimentsare applicable to other aspects/elements/steps, implementations and/orembodiments described herein.

The present invention has been described in terms of specificembodiments incorporating details to facilitate the understanding ofprinciples of construction and operation of the invention. Suchreference herein to specific embodiments and details thereof is notintended to limit the scope of the claims appended hereto. It will bereadily apparent to one skilled in the art that other variousmodifications may be made in the embodiment chosen for illustrationwithout departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as definedby the claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method programmed in a non-transitory memory ofa device comprising: a. analyzing target information to determineextraneous information; b. automatically fact checking the targetinformation excluding the extraneous information by comparing the targetinformation excluding the extraneous information with source informationto generate a result, wherein comparing includes at least one of: i.searching for an exact match of the target information in the sourceinformation and returning the result of the exact match search if theexact match is found; ii. utilizing pattern matching for fact checkingand returning the result of the pattern matching fact check if a patternmatching result confidence score is above a pattern matching resultconfidence threshold; and iii. utilizing a natural language search forfact checking and returning the result of the natural language factcheck if a natural language result confidence score is above a naturallanguage result confidence threshold; and c. automatically presenting astatus of the target information in real-time based on the result of thecomparison of the target information excluding the extraneousinformation with the source information, wherein searching for the exactmatch begins searching the source information located on a fastestaccess time hardware device and continues to slower access time hardwaredevices; wherein utilizing pattern matching begins utilizing the sourceinformation located on the fastest access time hardware device andcontinues to the slower access time hardware devices; and wherein thenatural language search begins searching the source information locatedon the fastest access time hardware device and continues to the sloweraccess time hardware devices.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein analyzingthe target information to determine the extraneous information includesimplementing noise canceling.
 3. The method of claim 1 whereinimplementing noise canceling includes monitoring a content in silence orapproximately silence to acquire distinct features of the content tolearn which of the content is the target information and which is theextraneous information.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein analyzing thetarget information to determine the extraneous information includesdetermining which entity corresponds to which portion of the targetinformation.
 5. The method of claim 4 further comprising labeling eachportion of the target information with the corresponding entity.
 6. Themethod of claim 5 wherein presenting the status of the targetinformation includes providing labels of the target information and thecorresponding entity.
 7. The method of claim 5 further comprisingpreventing an assignment of misinformation to an incorrect entity basedon labeling each portion of the target information with thecorresponding entity.
 8. The method of claim 1 wherein searching for theexact match begins searching the source information located in adesignated fact checking database and then goes to a broader set ofsource information; wherein utilizing pattern matching begins utilizingthe source information located in the designated fact checking database,then goes to the broader set of source information; and wherein thenatural language search begins searching the source information locatedin the designated fact checking database, then goes to the broader setof source information.
 9. The method of claim 1 wherein searching forthe exact match begins searching the source information classified by aplurality of keywords found in the target information, then using thesource information classified by a single keyword found in the targetinformation, and then using the source information classified bykeywords related to the keywords found in the target information;wherein utilizing pattern matching begins utilizing the sourceinformation classified by the plurality of keywords found in the targetinformation, then using the source information classified by the singlekeyword found in the target information, and then using the sourceinformation classified by the keywords related to the keywords found inthe target information; and wherein the natural language search beginssearching the source information classified by the plurality of keywordsfound in the target information, then using the source informationclassified by the single keyword found in the target information, andthen using the source information classified by the keywords related tothe keywords found in the target information.
 10. The method of claim 1further comprising parsing the target information into segments andprioritizing the segments, so that a highest priority segment is factchecked first, wherein priority is based on the relatedness of thesegment to a current topic being discussed and when the segment waspresented, wherein if the segment is not fact checked before a timeoutthreshold, then the segment is removed from a fact check queue.
 11. Themethod of claim 10 wherein a plurality of fact check queues areimplemented, wherein a first fact check queue contains the segments tobe fact checked in real-time, and the second fact check queue containsthe segments to be fact checked in non-real-time.
 12. The method ofclaim 1 further comprising parsing the target information into segmentsand prioritizing the segments, so that a highest priority segment isfact checked first, wherein priority is based on a presenter of thetarget information, wherein if the presenter of the target informationhas a validity rating below a first validity threshold, then thesegments of the target information from the presenter are prioritized ina highest priority group, and if the presenter of the target informationhas the validity rating above the first threshold and below a secondthreshold, then the segments of the target information from thepresenter are prioritized in a second highest priority group which has alower priority than the highest priority group, and if the presenter ofthe target information has the validity rating above the secondthreshold, then the segments of the target information from thepresenter are prioritized in a third highest priority group which has alower priority than the second highest priority group.
 13. The method ofclaim 1 further comprising parsing the target information into phrases,parsing the phrases into words, counting the number of words in eachphrase, and comparing each phrase with the source information containingthe same number of words as the number of words in the phrase beingcompared.
 14. The method of claim 13 wherein the source informationincludes only source information in a classification matching a keyworddetected in the target information.
 15. The method of claim 1 furthercomprising parsing the target information into phrases, parsing thephrases into words, counting the number of words in each phrase, andcomparing each phrase with the source information containing one moreword than the number of words in the phrase being compared.
 16. Themethod of claim 1 further comprising parsing the target information intosegments, and only fact checking randomly selected segments.
 17. Themethod of claim 1 wherein searching for the exact match begins searchingthe source information controlled by a media company, then usingcrowdsourced data as the source information, and then using world wideweb data for fact checking; wherein utilizing pattern matching beginsutilizing the source information controlled by the media company, thenusing the crowdsourced data as the source information, and then usingthe world wide web data for fact checking; and wherein the naturallanguage search begins searching the source information controlled bythe media company, then using the crowdsourced data as the sourceinformation, and then using the world wide web data for fact checking.18. The method of claim 1 further comprising analyzing a validity ratingof an entity, wherein if the validity rating of the entity is below athreshold, then the source information is limited to sources with arating above a reliability threshold.
 19. A method programmed in anon-transitory memory of a device comprising: a. analyzing targetinformation to determine extraneous information; b. automatically factchecking the target information excluding the extraneous information bycomparing the target information excluding the extraneous informationwith source information to generate a result, wherein comparing includesat least one of: i. implementing a first fact check implementation forfact checking the target information using the source information andreturning a first fact check result of the first fact checkimplementation if the first fact check result of the first fact check isabove a first confidence threshold; ii. implementing a second fact checkimplementation for fact checking the target information using the sourceinformation and returning a second fact check result of the second factcheck implementation if the second fact check result of the second factcheck is above a second confidence threshold; and iii. implementing athird fact check implementation for fact checking the target informationusing the source information and returning a third fact check result ofthe third fact check implementation if the third fact check result ofthe third fact check is above a third confidence threshold; and c.automatically presenting a status of the target information excludingthe extraneous information in real-time based on the comparison of thetarget information with the source information, wherein implementing thefirst fact check implementation begins searching the source informationlocated on a fastest access time hardware device; wherein implementingthe second fact check implementation begins utilizing the sourceinformation located on the fastest access time hardware device; andwherein implementing the third fact check implementation beginssearching the source information located on the fastest access timehardware device.
 20. A device comprising: a. a non-transitory memory forstoring an application for automatically performing the following steps:i. analyzing social networking information to determine extraneousinformation; ii. fact checking the social networking informationexcluding the extraneous information by comparing the social networkinginformation excluding the extraneous information with source informationto generate a result, wherein comparing includes at least one of: (1)searching for an exact match of the social networking information in thesource information and returning the result of the exact match search ifthe exact match is found; (2) utilizing pattern matching for factchecking and returning the result of the pattern matching fact check ifa pattern matching result confidence score is above a pattern matchingresult confidence threshold; and (3) utilizing a natural language searchfor fact checking and returning the result of the natural language factcheck if a natural language result confidence score is above a naturallanguage result confidence threshold; and iii. presenting a status ofthe social networking information in real-time based on the result ofthe comparison of the social networking information excluding theextraneous information with the source information, wherein searchingfor the exact match begins searching the source information located on afastest access time hardware device; wherein utilizing pattern matchingbegins utilizing the source information located on the fastest accesstime hardware device; and wherein the natural language search beginssearching the source information located on the fastest access timehardware device; and b. a processor for processing the application.